On Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions severely limited the ability of women and girls fleeing domestic violence to obtain asylum in the United States. In a rarely used maneuver, Sessions himself reconsidered the approved asylum petition of a survivor of domestic violence, known in the petition as "A.B." He not only denied A.B.'s claim, but he also overruled a 2014 precedent decision that recognized intimate partner violence as a basis for asylum in this country.

The brutality of A.B.'s marriage is difficult to read about but crucial to understanding the stakes of Sessions' action. Throughout a 15-year marriage, A.B.'s husband beat and raped her so many times that she lost count. When she was pregnant, he threatened to hang her with a rope from the roof of their house. He regularly brandished guns and knives in his efforts to terrify and control her. A.B. pleaded with the authorities for protection on numerous occasions, but they either refused or were unable to help her. Even after A.B. separated from her abuser, he threatened her life in the company of his brother, a police officer, telling her the divorce meant nothing and would not prevent him from harming her again. Terrified and desperate, A.B. fled El Salvador and sought protection in the United States.

Sessions' shameful legal conclusion is that survivors of intimate partner violence have not faced persecution on account of their membership in a "particular social group," a requirement to obtain asylum in the United States. His analysis is legally, conceptually and factually flawed. Sessions fixates on what he calls the "private" violence suffered by A.B., demonstrating his antiquated view of domestic abuse. In claiming that A.B.'s husband "attacked her because of [their] pre-existing personal relationship" or because of "personal reasons" based on their "individualized circumstances," Sessions perpetuates the mistaken belief that domestic violence is about one partner's animus toward another. Modern understanding of intimate partner abuse recognizes that such violence is, instead, an epidemic that both results from and perpetuates male privilege, as well as female subordination.

A.B.'s husband is not just a mean guy who took his anger issues out on his wife. He, like all domestic violence perpetrators, exercises power and control over his intimate partner because he can — because society has instilled and reinforced the belief that a husband can abuse his wife with impunity. Contrary to Sessions' ill-informed view, domestic violence does not occur in a vacuum, nor is it properly understood as private criminal conduct. Male privilege, misogynistic attitudes in government and law enforcement, economic subjugation of women, and generations of unchecked physical and sexual violence — all sanctioned by instruments of the state — contribute to a culture in which men can freely dominate women.

Sessions not only oversimplifies the complexities of intimate partner violence, but he also entirely misunderstands the impunity with which it occurs in many parts of the world. He writes, "The fact that the local police have not acted on a particular report of an individual crime does not necessarily mean that the government is unwilling or unable to control crime." But what A.B. endured is entirely too common. El Salvador is one of the world's deadliest countries for women. A recent study by the Latin American Working Group found that a woman is killed there every 16 hours. This is not a matter of a nation having, as Sessions dismissively writes, "problems policing certain crimes." Women are abused, tortured and murdered in El Salvador every day, and the government looks the other way, which is precisely the type of situation U.S. asylum laws were designed to address.

Although our asylum system has never been perfect, the United States has long stood as a beacon of hope for women fleeing gender-based violence and persecution. Coming on the heels of news of children being forcibly separated from their parents when seeking refuge at our borders, Sessions' action on A.B.'s petition is yet another blow to the dignity and fair treatment of women and immigrants. The United States has abdicated its domestic and international obligations as well as its moral responsibilities and leadership. We have turned our backs on women who desperately need our help. We can, we must, do better.

Natalie Nanasi is an assistant professor at Southern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law and the director of the school's Judge Elmo B. Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women. Email: nnanasi@smu.edu.